Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, speaking on “Hannity,” highlighted what he sees as an unusual level of judicial interference. Dershowitz argued that the courts are stepping into areas traditionally reserved for executive decision-making, particularly in matters related to Trump’s actions while in office.

“The courts are intruding significantly into the core areas of presidential authority,” Dershowitz stated. He was particularly critical of judicial decisions that he believes set a dangerous precedent by undermining the separation of powers, a cornerstone of American governance.

Dershowitz pointed to several cases where courts have ruled against Trump, including issues related to national security and immigration policies. He questioned the legality and the long-term implications of these rulings, suggesting that they might deter future presidents from making bold executive decisions for fear of judicial overruling.

He emphasized the importance of judicial restraint, warning that unchecked judicial activism could lead to a weakening of the executive branch’s ability to act decisively. “There has to be some deference to the president’s authority,” Dershowitz argued, adding that while no one is above the law, the courts must recognize the constitutional powers of the presidency.

The discussion also touched on the potential politicization of the judiciary, with Dershowitz suggesting that some decisions might reflect political biases rather than purely legal considerations. He called for a return to judicial norms where courts respect the executive’s domain unless there’s clear evidence of constitutional violation.

This commentary comes at a time when debates over the balance of power among the branches of government are increasingly prominent, especially in light of actions taken by the judiciary in high-profile cases involving President Trump.

The Department of Government Efficiency, DOGE, is especially being targeted as the group, led by Elon Musk, attempts to remove government waste. At a time when our national debt is skyrocketing and corruption is rampant in Washington DC, the activist judiciary needs to sit this one out.

Article generated from legacy media reports.

It’s going to work out. In fact, it’s going to be better than I think most people realize. Their attacks on executive actions, particularly those associated with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), are going to fail spectacularly because the Supreme Court is not going to subvert the Constitution for the sake of corrupt government agencies.

Even Chief Justice Roberts is likely to side with the Trump administration on most if not all of the cases once they reach his desk. The three lukewarm right-leaners — Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh — will fall in line. Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito will do what they normally do, which is to align with the Constitution.

In other words, it’s going to be fine. We’ve suffered through government corruption for decades. A few more months is unlikely to kill us. In the meantime, it’s incumbent on us to help educate our fellow Americans about what’s really going on, which is a UniParty Swamp attack against those who are trying to end their various scams being perpetrated on the American people.

Conservative attorney Kurt Schlickter laid it out very nicely on X:

Here is a long take on the court injunction crisis, which is less crisis than an opportunity…

OK, stop panicking about all the stupid legal decisions from leftist judges that the left is getting from judge shopping in leftist jurisdictions.

Stop. Panicking.

First, no one should be surprised by any of this. The administration certainly isn’t. We always knew exactly what they would do. Do not take the fact they are not screaming and yelling as them rolling over. They are not rolling over. There’s plenty going on behind the scenes as administration lawyers prepare their papers for the legal fight to come.

Second, since we have to have this fight, this is the time and the battleground to have it. Why? We want it settled right at the beginning of the administration so that we don’t have to deal with this down the road. And we want to fight on these orders because 1) they are manifestly the result of bad faith judge shopping and the opinions themselves are both procedural and 2) they are substantively ridiculous. They are legal jokes.

Don’t listen to the dummy lawyers on Twitter – only listen to me or the people I tell you that you can rely on. Everyone telling you these are reasoned, valid legal decisions is either a legal illiterate or thinks you are stupid.

Third, the way this fight is happening is to our advantage. Wait, you ask, we’re getting decision after decision against us! How can that be good? Because they are leaving the Supreme Court no choice. People want Trump to sound off about this, but he doesn’t need to. What’s left unstated is the fact that he can just not obey these manifestly improper orders. They say it’s a constitutional crisis now, but that becomes a real one when they push Trump too far. He’s not going to submit forever to micromanagement of the executive branch by activist District Court judges in blue cities across America. And Chief Justice Roberts knows it.

CJ Roberts and majority of the court know these are ridiculous legally, and the last thing they want to do is stake the credibility of the Court – which famously has no divisions – on this kind of nonsense. They are not going to jump on the grenade that is these decisions. There might someday be a fight with a president about something where he is legally in the wrong, but this is not that time. This is not the hill the Supreme Court will die on. Wisely, Trump’s not adding fuel to the fire by threatening to do what it’s very clear he can do, which is disobey. This provides SCOTUS the cover it needs to deal with these upstart district courts without looking like Trump strong-armed it.

So relax and let the process go forward. We’re going to win on all these injunctions, and I expect fairly quickly.

Exactly. And while I agree with nearly everything he said, I’ll add that we shouldn’t “relax.” We’re participants in securing our freedoms. That means alerting our Democrat representatives that we support ending government corruption. It means educating our friends and family about what’s really going on because legacy media is working overtime trying to paint limiting government as a bad thing.

Things are heading in the right direction. We need to see it through and most importantly we need to pray that His Will is done, always.

“If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal,” Vance said in a post on X. “If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal. Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”

If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal.

If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal.

Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power.

— JD Vance (@JDVance) February 9, 2025

This sentiment aligns with broader concerns within the Trump administration regarding judicial interference. Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller labeled the recent court ruling as an undemocratic move by unelected bureaucrats, reflecting a growing frustration with legal challenges to the administration’s initiatives.

“These frivolous lawsuits are akin to children throwing pasta at the wall to see if it will stick. … This activist judge has resorted to locking the Senate-confirmed Secretary of Treasury out of his role. It’s absurd and judicial overreach,” White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement. ““Grandstanding government efficiency speaks volumes about those who’d rather delay much-needed change with legal shenanigans than work with the Trump Administration of ridding the government of waste, fraud, and abuse.”

The administration is currently navigating several legal obstacles, particularly in its efforts to restructure federal agencies and implement significant workforce reductions. Democrats have expressed alarm, likening the situation to a constitutional crisis reminiscent of Watergate. Senator Chris Murphy emphasized the necessity for public and congressional intervention to uphold the balance of power.

Despite these challenges, Republicans continue to back the president’s authority to execute his agenda, even in the face of judicial opposition. The tension between the executive branch and the judiciary underscores a pivotal debate over the separation of powers within the U.S. government.

Article generated from legacy media reports.